another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Bubba1]

Bubba you're getting tedious in the extreme.  Correctly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE.  Which is ALSO explained in WIKI.  Much more important is that you answer your earlier concern that a battery can deliver a negative current flow - which seems to be something you really CAN endorse.  Somehow? 

I'm not going to answer any more of your posts Bubba.  They're getting too tedious.  And they've got absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic.

Rosemary

Yes I can endorse negative current flow from a battery.  It all depends upon how "positive" is defined.  If you take a car battery and measure  12 volts, then reverse the leads and the meter then reads -12 volts, voila!  negative voltage, unless you think every meter in the world reads incorrectly.  You can do the same thing with a shunt resistor - you can read   or - amps, it depends on how you have the leads connected.
I think this has everything to do with your topic.  I have a really tough time following your explanations when you write "zig", when you should have written "zag", or whatever.
Bubba

[JouleSeeker]

I wrote to Rose:

For input energy, I suggest use of a capacitor, as non-leaky as possible, then the input energy can be MEASURED in a straightforward way:

Einput = 1/2 C * (Vfinal**2 - Vinitial**2).

She responded to me:

Professor.  I need to alert you to the confusions that result from this kind of 'equation' if that's the right term.  Einput is what?  The energy delivered by the battery? 
   Or the energy that is returned to the battery from counter electromotive force? 

I guess it wasn't clear that I was proposing a test in which you use a non-leaky, large C capacitor in place of the battery to provide the input energy.  I hope that is clear now. 

Rose continues:

And that 1/2 represents what?  A half? Or is it merely '1 Einput' divided by '2 Einputs'?  And 'C'?  Does that represent degrees centigrade or 'C' as in the constant related to the speed of light?  And what is Vfinal?  And why is this **2? Is that the interim final of Einput and does ** represent squared as does '^'?  In which case where does Vfinal differ from Vinitial?  You see my problem.  I'm a CLUTZ.  And I only know rather pedantic and simple terms that are recommended for those whose understanding is heavily compromised by lack of standard training. ...
Rosie.

I see.  The equation

E = 1/2 C * (V**2)

is found in basic textbooks and provides the energy stored in a capacitor having a capacitance C.  Yes, V**2 represents V squared.

Thus, the energy delivered to your circuit BY THE CAPACITOR will be,

Efinal - Einitial = Einput = 1/2 C * (Vfinal**2 - Vinitial**2).

Quite straightforward, isn't it?

[Pandaman]

The scientific community does not yet have some of the SI Units down to their basics.

For example, an Ampere's units are really Meters/Second, but this is not yet understood and so they continue to just use Amperes because they do not realize that "Charge" (Coulomb) is actually a unit of "Distance" (Electron Orbit Diameter).  The now accepted "Charge per Second" (Ampere) is really "Distance per Second" which is the same as Velocity.  The same mis-information applies regarding a Weber and a Tesla.  The units for a Tesla are Kilograms/MeterSecond but they continue to use Kilogram/AmpSec2 or Weber/Meter2.  The community also does not yet realize that a Henry is a unit of Electrical-Mass (Kilogram).  The true electrical units can be easily and clearly viewed on EinsteinElectricity.com

Gravock

I agree, it's getting very tedious.  But, if you cannot get the units right, then I don't see how you can get anything else right.  This is very basic.

Yes but it is the perfect way to hide the fact that you are not going to get a free energy device without acceleration.

So where is the acceleration in this device?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Golly - I've woken up to all this?  If I didn't know better I'd be inclined to suppose that I'm swimming AGAINST popular opinion.    Who would have thought?    Guys, girls, I'm simply trying to alert you all to the existence of some rather desirable energy that's been 'hiding' in our inductive and conductive circuit components.  For some reason you all seem to find  this is hugely undesirable.  And it seems that you all consider the niceties of our science references, considerably more important than this rather unusual evidence.  Which, I might add, we've gone to some considerable trouble to PROVE.  And the ONLY nicety that I'VE attempted to redress is Poynty's INVALID point that a battery discharges a negative current flow.  However, as Bubba has correctly pointed out.  IF we first take the trouble to invert our probes - then we WILL INDEED get our results 'back in line'.  This is unarguable.  In other words she is recommending that we take logic by the nose - twist in any any clockwise or anticlockwise direction, as required, apply the boot to it's rear end - and then?  Reason is FLOORED.  Science is UPENDED.  Logic is DEFEATED.  And that's precisely the argument that Poynty makes - albeit a little more circuitously.  Actually a LOT more circuitously.  No question.

Put simply - the argument that they are both relying on is that we that we take our conventional positioning of our standard voltage probes and apply it to the negative terminal of a battery supply source.  And, that way - unquestionably - Poynty and Bubba would most certainly be able to win their arguments.  EVERYTHING contained in these tedious >30 pages of this thread is then MORE THAN JUSTIFIED.  She's right.  He's right.  Why follow convention?  BUT.  That leaves me with a real problem.  Because.  IF current flow from a battery supply source is ASSUMED to have a negative polarity - then I may as well pack up, move away from this morass of nonsense and irrelevances -  and get some sleep.  Much needed I might add.

And if that isn't enough - our dear Professor Steven E Jones, who we all know is the soul of courtesy and tact (except as it applies to Andrea Rossi) is now appealing to you all, participants and readers BOTH ... to ADJUDICATE?  I get the distinct impression that he's ANGRY?  God alone know about what - or why?  No longer do I get the simple courtesy of a direct reply.  He is clearly EXASPERATED.   He SPEAKS TO THE FLOOR.  He will not even address me.  For some reason my open admission of a SERIOUS lack of intelligence and comprehension - is NOT TO BE TOLERATED.  I'm not sure that its entirely fair.  My lack of a functional IQ (intelligence quotient) has already been assessed and found wanting.  So?  Surely?  I deserve something better than this DEMAND that I follow his own 'references'.  I simply do not have the mental agility to encompass so many departures from standard protocols.  I REQUIRE supreme indulgence - if I am to participate AT ALL - in this poor evidence that is struggling - as much as I myself am struggling - to get ACKNOWLEDGED.  Certainly I would have thought that those of us who are so seriously intellectually challenged - would deserve more courtesy.  One does not, as a rule 'kick a cripple'. 

In any event.  I'll see if I can somehow salvage our dear Professor's good will - and get this argument back on track - in the context of the ONLY terms that I can understand - which are, unfortunately and rather prosaically, merely CONVENTIONAL.  I'll do that in a follow up post.  Right now I'm exhausted.

Kindest regards notwithstanding, and ever onwards
Rosie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And guys, Professor...girls?  All.

Here again is the schedule of rather preposterous CLAIMS that are proved by the experimental evidence of tests related to our circuit, detailed in our first part of that 2-part paper, witnessed now by some small fraction under 100 people - of varying electrical engineering skills but all of whom are COMPETENT.  And the results are broadly explained in the 2nd part of that 2-part paper.  These are not idle BOASTS.  Nor are the result of measurement errors.  And more to the point.  They're not FRIVOLOUS.  If valid - they unquestionably point to the existence of an energy supply source in inductive and conductive circuit material.  Which also means that we are using our electric current applications at something less than their full potential.  And this, like all such proof of ALTERNATE ENERGY SUPPLIES would, more than likely, be HIGHLY EXPLOITABLE.   

Here it is again.  Enjoy.  Or if this alarms you - then MOVE ON.  Because we're not able to cater to the faint hearted.

. We have a circuit that generates a ROBUST self-sustaining oscillation that persists for the duration that a battery is entirely disconnected from the circuit. 
. This oscillation results in a measurable dissipation of energy at the circuit workstation - notwithstanding the lack of energy from a supply source.
. Subject to variations at the switch it can increase the amount of energy dissipated at the load - to the point that it can boil water.
. And over more than 250 individual settings tested there is absolutely no energy measured to have been delivered by that supply source.
. All of which measurements have been 'double checked' by downloading the data to spreadsheets for analysis
. Nor have we measured any depletion of potential difference to the 6 batteries that we've used continuously over an 18 month period
. All of which flies in the face of classical prediction

Kindest regards,
Rosie

I forgot to add.  THIS QUALIFIES US FOR THAT OVER UNITY PRIZE. And we're rather anxious to acquire this.  And more to the point - we NEED THAT PRIZE TO PROVE THAT OVER UNITY HAS INDEED SURFACED.  Finally found some air.  Ready to show itself.  Ready to be demonstrated.  The only question is how many excuses are going to be put in the way of that demonstration?  And when - in the history of science - has ANYONE been justified in DENYING EVIDENCE without first evaluating it?  CAN'T BE DONE.  IT'S A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS.